Tuesday, 15 March 2016

Subduing the Attitude of Surrender in the War against Food Fraud

Responding to the LinkedIn article by Dr. Sylvain Charlebois (see
the full reference link below),I provided this comment:

“ ‘ . . eliminating food fraud will give the
entire food industry a chance to become more sustainable...’ This is a very
hopeful statement. Some think that a complete elimination is not possible, that
only a reduction to an acceptable level is possible. But what is an "acceptable level" of fraud? I subscribe to the school of thought that recommends a complete
elimination goal through continuous reduction strategies whereby every effort
is made to retain conquered territories. The work may never be done but it is
not to be pursued with a resignation of hopelessness. I also see the futility of
fighting only the symptoms (specific instances of committed fraud) instead of
systematically tackling the root cause. The SSQA concept provides such a
systematic approach based on some established facts, realities and dynamics that are
both known and seen to be at play. . .”

This blog
post, though it expands upon the comment above, only introduces the SSQA
approach. The GCSE-FHPSSQA fraud prevention approach involves a commitment to: “.
. . subduing the attitude of surrender and harnessing the power of positive
influence” [SSQA Development and Implementation Manual,Section 2.4.7]. The role of regulatory and law enforcement agencies in
the war against food fraud is recognized with the SSQA concept but it places
the onus largely on the individual food companies. The use of emerging
scientific and technological developments in fraud detection is also
recognized. The main SSQA focus, however, is on systematically attacking the
root cause of fraud.

Detecting and dealing with fraud perpetrators have their
place but the premise of the SSQA approach is this:

Fraud would not need to be
detected if it was not committed.

Combating fraud certainly requires detection intelligence. However, the war against food fraud requires integrity and courage more than it needs detection methods and tools.

In the arena of food fraud, courage is only dangerous where it is not governed by integrity and integrity soon falters where greed dominates and courage is lacking.

Any suggested or applied solution can only be partially effective if it does not adequately address the interplay of integrity, greed, courage and detection intelligence. Partial effectiveness is not enough. With the SSQA fraud prevention approach, it is understood that the food fraud war cannot be won on paper. However, it is also understood that the war can be won with due consideration given to the dynamics at play. As
reflected in the commitment statement, the SSQA approach clearly rejects any sentiments
of surrender. Where SSQA is implemented, there is no yielding to a presumed inevitability
of food fraud in the same way that crime is presumed to be inevitable in many
societies.

SSQA
implementation also goes along with the understanding that a war that is
partially waged against an evasive enemy cannot be won. Hence SSQA fraud
prevention principles are implemented with the determined intention of winning
the war on all fronts. Pursuits with expectations of only
partial success are regarded to be pointless under the SSQA approach.

A detailed
explanation of how to actively pursue the stated commitment is provided in the
SSQA Implementation Manual, Section 2.4.7. The key differences between
crime (including organized crime) and food fraud provide the basis for the
optimism that the war against food fraud can be won. These differences are
explained along with strategies for harnessing the de facto positive realities
and dynamics already at play in many companies. One of
the pre-existing advantages explained is that many people within the industry are already more pre-disposed to doing what is right than
otherwise.

Part of the SSQA Manual
explanation also points out that resources need to be efficiently channelled
into fighting the real enemies instead of shadows or the “volcanic eruptions”
as one of the other post puts it. The futility of fighting only the symptoms is
perhaps the cause of the hopelessness that is often expressed by some
well-meaning people. At best, only a temporary reprieve can be achieved with sporadic
band-aid solutions. There may be many cores at different depths wherever fraud
perpetrators operate but getting to the core of the problem in each instance gives
greater hope that this war against food fraud can be won.

In your operation or opinion, which of these ranks the highest as an area needing help from an external party?

As a consumer or user of food, pharmaceuticals, medical devices or cosmetics, how would you rank safety, availability and price in order of importance from left (most important) to right (least important)?